Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252 (2026)

Medical report regulation; rules; duties of attending physician or nurse practitioner; disclosure of information; notice of changing attending physician or nurse practitioner; copies of medical service billings to be furnished to worker

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      656.252 Medical report regulation; rules; duties of attending physician or nurse practitioner; disclosure of information; notice of changing attending physician or nurse practitioner; copies of medical service billings to be furnished to worker. (1) In order to ensure the prompt and correct reporting and payment of compensation in compensable injuries, the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall make rules governing audits of medical service bills and reports by attending and consulting physicians and other personnel of all medical information relevant to the determination of a claim to the injured worker’s representative, the worker’s employer, the employer’s insurer and the Department of Consumer and Business Services. Such rules shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:

      (a) Requiring attending physicians and nurse practitioners authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 to make the insurer or self-insured employer a first report of injury within 72 hours after the first service rendered.

      (b) Requiring attending physicians and nurse practitioners authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 to submit follow-up reports within specified time limits or upon the request of an interested party.

      (c) Requiring examining physicians and nurse practitioners authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 to submit their reports, and to whom, within a specified time.

      (d) Such other reporting requirements as the director may deem necessary to insure that payments of compensation be prompt and that all interested parties be given information necessary to the prompt determination of claims.

      (e) Requiring insurers and self-insured employers to audit billings for all medical services, including hospital services.

      (2) The attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 shall do the following:

      (a) Cooperate with the insurer or self-insured employer to expedite diagnostic and treatment procedures and with efforts to return injured workers to appropriate work.

      (b) Advise the insurer or self-insured employer of the anticipated date for release of the injured worker to return to employment, the anticipated date that the worker will be medically stationary, and the next appointment date. Except when the attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 has previously indicated that temporary disability will not exceed 14 days, the insurer or self-insured employer may request a medical report every 15 days, and the attending physician or nurse practitioner shall forward such reports.

      (c) Advise the insurer or self-insured employer within five days of the date the injured worker is released to return to work. Under no circumstances shall the physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 notify the insurer or employer of the worker’s release to return to work without notifying the worker at the same time.

      (d) After a claim has been closed, advise the insurer or self-insured employer within five days after the treatment is resumed or the reopening of a claim is recommended. The attending physician under this paragraph need not be the same attending physician who released the worker when the claim was closed.

      (3) In promulgating the rules regarding medical reporting the director may consult and confer with physicians and members of medical associations and societies.

      (4) No person who reports medical information to a person referred to in subsection (1) of this section, in accordance with department rules, shall incur any legal liability for the disclosure of such information.

      (5) Whenever an injured worker changes attending physicians or nurse practitioners authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245, the newly selected attending physician or nurse practitioner shall so notify the responsible insurer or self-insured employer not later than five days after the date of the change or the date of first treatment. Every attending physician or nurse practitioner authorized to provide compensable medical services under ORS 656.245 who refers a worker to a consulting physician promptly shall notify the responsible insurer or self-insured employer of the referral.

      (6) A provider of medical services, including hospital services, that submits a billing to the insurer or self-insured employer shall also submit a copy of the billing to the worker for whom the service was performed after receipt from the injured worker of a written request for such a copy. [1967 c.626 §§2,5; 1979 c.839 §3; 1981 c.535 §6; 1981 c.874 §17; 1987 c.884 §3; 1995 c.332 §26a; 2001 c.865 §14a; 2003 c.811 §§7,8; 2007 c.365 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1984–2013 · leading case: Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991). · cites it 67× “ORS 656.252. This court's review of such delegative rules is largely deferential, especially when the agency has special expertise and has made a statutory interpretation at least as plausible as any challenger's.”
Mershon v. Oregonian Publ'g, 772 P.2d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Medical information relevant to a claim includes a past history of complaints of, or treatment of, a condition similar to that presented in the claim.”
Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 446 S.E.2d 648 (W. Va. 1994). “252(1) provides: '(1) In order to insure the prompt and correct reporting and payment of compensation in compensable injuries, the director shall make rules governing * * * reports by attending and consulting physicians and other personnel of all medical information relevant to…”
SAIF Corp. v. Ross, 82 P.3d 1035 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “Finally, the director’s interpretation of the rule is plausible in light of ORS 656.252: “(1) In order to ensure the prompt and correct reporting and payment of compensation in compensable injuries, the [director] shall make rules governing * * * reports by attending and…”
State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Belcher, 692 P.2d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “SAIF argues that jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning frequency of medical treatment rests exclusively in the medical director of the Workers’ Compensation Department under OAR 436-69-201, pursuant to the authority granted by ORS 656.252. In addition, SAIF contends that…”
Mershon v. Oregonian Publ'g, 764 P.2d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “No person who reports to these persons in accordance with department rules shall bear any legal liability for disclosure of such (ORS 656.252). The physician may require evidence from the representative of his or her representative capacity.”
Lewis v. Cigna Ins., 26 P.3d 165 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “However, that citation was embedded in a string of citations to other statutes and rules that deal with issues unrelated to noncooperation denials.”
Sparling v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 308 P.3d 1103 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Movius ever “notified] the responsible insurer or self-insured employer” that claimant had selected her to be claimant’s attending physician, as ORS 656.252(5) would have required her to do “not later than five days after the date of the change [of attending physicians] or the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(1) — 2 cases
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991). “ORS 656.252. This court's review of such delegative rules is largely deferential, especially when the agency has special expertise and has made a statutory interpretation at least as plausible as any challenger's.”
Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 446 S.E.2d 648 (W. Va. 1994). “252(1) provides: '(1) In order to insure the prompt and correct reporting and payment of compensation in compensable injuries, the director shall make rules governing * * * reports by attending and consulting physicians and other personnel of all medical information relevant to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(1)(a) — 1 case
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991). “ORS 656.252. This court's review of such delegative rules is largely deferential, especially when the agency has special expertise and has made a statutory interpretation at least as plausible as any challenger's.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(1)(d) — 1 case
Mershon v. Oregonian Publ'g, 772 P.2d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Medical information relevant to a claim includes a past history of complaints of, or treatment of, a condition similar to that presented in the claim.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(15) — 1 case
Lewis v. Cigna Ins., 26 P.3d 165 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “However, that citation was embedded in a string of citations to other statutes and rules that deal with issues unrelated to noncooperation denials.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(4) — 1 case
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991). “ORS 656.252. This court's review of such delegative rules is largely deferential, especially when the agency has special expertise and has made a statutory interpretation at least as plausible as any challenger's.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(5) — 1 case
Sparling v. Providence Health Sys. Oregon, 308 P.3d 1103 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Movius ever “notified] the responsible insurer or self-insured employer” that claimant had selected her to be claimant’s attending physician, as ORS 656.252(5) would have required her to do “not later than five days after the date of the change [of attending physicians] or the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(l)(a) — 1 case
Booth v. Tektronix, Inc., 823 P.2d 402 (Or. 1991). “ORS 656.252. This court's review of such delegative rules is largely deferential, especially when the agency has special expertise and has made a statutory interpretation at least as plausible as any challenger's.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.252(l)(d) — 1 case
Mershon v. Oregonian Publ'g, 772 P.2d 440 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Medical information relevant to a claim includes a past history of complaints of, or treatment of, a condition similar to that presented in the claim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.